| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mike Finn <mike(dot)finn(at)tacticalExecutive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected *ABORT STATE* |
| Date: | 2001-07-31 20:31:27 |
| Message-ID: | 24722.996611487@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Mike Finn <mike(dot)finn(at)tacticalExecutive(dot)com> writes:
> My guess is that the underlying problem is that psql really doesn't
> know when it is in an interactive session or not.
No, the real problem is that we have only one mechanism for recovering
to a valid state after an error, and that is transaction abort.
Distinguishing statement abort from transaction abort will require
a huge amount of work --- every transaction-or-longer-lifetime data
structure in the backend will need to be looked at, for example, to see
how it can be rolled back to the proper state after a statement abort.
It'll probably get done someday, but don't hold your breath ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-07-31 20:37:46 | Re: Really slow UPDATE and DELETE |
| Previous Message | wsheldah | 2001-07-31 20:25:27 | Re: Re: looking for a secure |